Dean serves a side of humor with platform

I am interested in hearing more from Karl Dean, but don't interpret that to mean that he's not a likeable fellow. Maybe he's a little less approachable than David Briley, but he has a funny and self-deprecating sense of humor (another Purcell similarity) that made for some good banter today.

Responding to one question, Dean began to answer by saying, "If I'm mayor." He paused and then corrected himself. "Well, I guess I'm supposed to say, 'When I'm mayor, aren't I?"

When one attendee asked about public transportation, Bruce Barry jumped in to urge Dean to build a subway (an intentionally absurd notion, since Nashville rests on layers of formidable limestone). Dean replied, "No, I want a monorail." He may or may not be a Simpsons fan, but I welcomed a little playful verbal sparring from a candidate for public office. I'm pretty sure that's not in the talking points, but it did earn a few chuckles from the rest of the table.

Another blogger referred to the "other four high profile candidates" in the race (meaning Briley, Clement, Dozier and Gentry, presumably) when asking a question. Dean interrupted to say, "You're confident I'm a high profile candidate?" and laughed. He wasn't being combative, in my opinion. He was having fun. That's refreshing, I think.

Lunch with Dean

Mayoral candidate Karl Dean hosted a lunch meeting today for area bloggers. About a dozen folks showed up at the Flying Saucer, among them Bruce Barry, Hutchmo, Ned Williams, Nathan Moore and myself. I have lots of notes to review, but I'll offer this brief post in the meantime.

Dean strikes me as a cross between Bill Purcell and Phil Bredesen. As he noted during lunch, Nashville has been blessed to have 16 years of great mayoral leadership under those two leaders, so that's definitely a compliment. (Since they have reportedly struggled to get along at times in the past, I'm not sure how they'd feel about this comparison, but it rang true for me today.)

Dean sounds a little like Purcell when he talks: He has a lot to say, and he did ramble at times. He carefully and thoughtfully weighed his responses to many questions. There is a deliberateness about Dean that reminds me of Purcell. I left with the impression that Dean would not take any issue affecting the city lightly or make any decision without considering its consequences. That's good leadership.

He reminds me of Bredesen because he comes across as intelligent and highly practical. Sure, he mentioned similar lofty ambitions for his leadership vision the way most other candidates do, but I got a strong sense that Dean would focus most on what he could help the city get done. Discussing his experience as Metro law director and as public defender, he couched himself as a problem solver who seeks to get to the heart of an issue and figure out what to do about it. This approach appears to fit with his emphasis on his experience in the executive (as in to execute, to get things done, to do) branch of government as opposed to the legislative area. Dean was sure to point out that three of his opponents, David Briley, Howard Gentry and Buck Dozier, are current council members and that Bob Clement is known best for his time as a congressman.

Describing Dean in this way, I realize that I'd still like to see and learn more about Dean's own voice and personality. Compared with the other major candidates, he entered the race fairly late (in December) and is arguably a lesser known, though respected, community leader. Until recently, Dean has been fairly quiet on the campaign, apparently focusing (quite successfully) on catching up on fundraising since he announced his candidacy later than everyone else.

It's still awfully early in this race, so there's plenty of time remaining for Dean to raise his public profile, but I generally like what I have seen so far and what I heard today. He is an electable candidate in this race, but in my opinion so are three of the other four candidates. (I'm hoping personally that Clement is not, but that's up for the voters to decide, not just me.)

I'll share more about today's discussion and issues that were raised over the next few days. Stay tuned.

Touche, Erik Cole

Hats off to Council member Erik Cole for his motion at the council meeting last night, as reported in today's City Paper:

District 7 Council member Erik Cole, who last week voted against the English First bill, motioned for the council to override Purcell’s veto. On a vote, the motion failed 12 – 14, with four members abstaining. The bill’s original sponsor, 22nd District representative Eric Crafton, made an immediate motion to reconsider. His motion was denied by the Council Chairman, Vice Mayor Howard Gentry.

Thanks to Vice Mayor Gentry for preventing Council member Crafton from avoiding the vote, too. The Tennessean reported Cole's reasoning for the motion, and I fully agree: “The intent was to dispatch with the discussion,” Cole said. “This has been a purely political exercise, and the citizens of Nashville are ready to move on to more important matters.”

Please let this go, Councilman Crafton. In my opinion, you are wasting our time and our money.

Gail is right

Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr applauds Mayor Purcell for his recent veto of the English-first bill in this morning's paper.

"I have never been more proud to be a Nashvillian and to call Bill Purcell my town's mayor than I have been this past week. Well done, sir, well done, indeed."

I wholeheartedly agree. Despite Councilman Eric Crafton's plans to continue his quest for this legislation with a public referendum, I think Purcell's veto was a noble action in the best interest of our city. Thanks again, Bill.

Lunch with Briley

It's been a good week. First off, my wife and I were seated next to Mayor Purcell for our Valentine's Day dinner on Wednesday, and today I participated in a lunch along with several other local bloggers hosted by mayoral candidate David Briley. Even better, unlike Purcell, Briley and I actually had a conversation while I was there.

My general impressions were that Briley is a well-spoken, open-minded person who would like to make Nashville a better place to live. I haven't made up my mind yet, but he appears to be someone I could vote for. At the very least, I don't think I would be upset to see him serve as mayor, and that's not insignificant with five months or so still remaining in the race. (In other words, that's a compliment with so much campaigning left to go.)

Thanks, Sean, for setting this up, and to everyone else for participating (Brittney Gilbert, Adam Kleinheider, Sarah Moore, Ned Williams and John of Salem's Lots). Here are some collected thoughts from today's discussion, which I found to be respectful and good-natured throughout despite a wide variety of thoughts and opinions on the issues:

Regarding fellow progressive mayoral candidate Karl Dean, Briley said, "Karl Dean is a friend of mine, and I have nothing negative to say about him." He did go on to say that he considers himself "better prepared after the past [nearly] eight years on the council" to serve as mayor, citing "broader experience" with budgeting, tax concerns, legislation, juvenile justice, crime and education compared to Dean's fairly targeted tenure as the city's director of law and as an adjunct professor of law at Vanderbilt.

When asked how to support Nashville's improving but still ailing public schools, Briley quoted Lamar Alexander's three keys to a successful school system: A good prinicipal, good teachers and good parents. He emphasized that involvement by parents is a major deficit right now and pledged to offer "unprecedented support" to encourage involvement by parents and by other role models. According to him, where our schools struggle most is in middle school. We do a decent job in elementary and high school, he argued, but not nearly as well for grades five through eight. Briley promised to get "every possible organization engaged in middle schools to get students through high schools in four years." He also noted that 10,000 young adults ages 16 to 24 in Nashville are responsible for 80 percent of our crimes, and that taking measures now to reach out to struggling students may help change this.

Briley acknowledged that reforming an organization large enough to serve 70,000 students will take some work. At the same time, he said that the school system "can't be one size fits all" and that it must be able to adapt to meet the needs of a diverse body of students. He emphasized the need for greater parental choice in the school system, stopping short of widespread adoption of charter schools but still acknowledging that parents are choosing now, for example, by moving to satellite counties when their children lose out in the lottery for magnet school slots.

Briley did say that he would like to see a "more objective" method for selecting charter schools and that the current system, where the school board has the primary say, is like "asking Wal-Mart to decide about putting a Target nearby." He would also like to provide more choice for parents within the public school system by allowing different categories of schools and granting parents the option to choose among them: He mentioned schools with uniforms, single-sex schools and Montessori schools as possible options.

When asked specifically about the fact that he did not vote in the final tally for the Metro Council's recent and controversial English-first bill, Briley explained that he voted against the bill on its second reading and had "nothing to gain by flip-flopping on the final vote." Even though he stepped out during debate for the legitimate reason of checking on his children by cell phone, he acknowledged that it was "a mistake on my part" and "I would have voted against it." He also claimed that he would have vetoed the bill, as did Mayor Purcell, if he had been mayor when it passed the council.

Explaining his stance on what he described as a merely "symbolic" bill," Briley noted that Nashville is "not a homogenous place" and that legal immigrants are "here to stay whether we like it or not." "We can't as a community act in a way that pushes everyone into a corner by label," he said. "We must empower immigrant communities to be a part of the culture." Briley also said that the bill "does zero legally" and went on to say that Nashville is "an inclusive city where everyone is expected to conduct themselves appropriately."

Philosophically speaking, I have the impression that Briley and I are in the same ballpark of many of the major issues. I did not have the impression during lunch that he ducked any questions, even tougher ones, but I will say that he has his talking points down pat. He did a good job of staying on his message without straying into territory that he didn't want to address, such as whether his tenure on the council would make him more or less effective as mayor. On that issue, he answered by saying, "It's up to the mayor to develop leadership in the council and to allow proactive, intelligent leaders [within the council] to raise issues ... Changing term limits alone won't solve the council's recent problems."

I'll close with what I thought was a genuine and respectable statement by Briley that I would say sums up my impressions following lunch: "I won't pretend to have all of the answers, but I will open up the doors for those who do." Thanks, David, for inviting a few of us in the blogosphere to sit down with you and for letting us fire away today.

Right on, Bill and Phil

I'm grateful to see that Governor Phil Bredesen has publicly praised Mayor Bill Purcell's decision to veto the Metro Council's much-debated "English-First" bill today. As the City Paper has quickly reported, Bredesen called the veto the "right thing to do:"

I think a lot of that stuff has way too much of a posturing aspect about it for my taste... I always thought that English-only stuff was kind of a very un-American way of going at things... I think this has always been, at its best, an open and accessible country that values everyone who lives here.

There's no denying, as Councilman and bill sponsor Eric Crafton has mentioned, that there is significant public opinion in favor of this bill. Illegal immigration has been a major point of discussion over the past year locally and nationally. I personally oppose this legislation because I think it's small-minded and a significant waste of time when the council would be better suited addressing issues that impact a larger share of its constituents. I also believe that this bill does very little in terms of practical changes for city communications, and I'm left to wonder what allowing it to pass really accomplishes other than subjecting the city to the possibility of future lawsuits when the bill eventually gets in the way of delivery of legitimate city services.

Thank you, Mayor Purcell, for taking this stand. Thank you, Governor Bredesen, for shedding additional light on what in my opinion is a very sound decision by the mayor. It's no secret that Bredesen and Purcell haven't always been able to agree, but I respect both men for taking firm action in this instance. I am much prouder of our city and our state today than I was last Tuesday when this measure passed the council. To the 14 council members who voted against the bill when it passed, thank you for voting as you did. Please remain strong in your commitment to a more welcoming and diverse community when this legislation is addressed again next Tuesday.

Where the sun don't shine

The U.S. Senate joined the House yesterday in passing legislation requiring disclosure for earmarks, which are often referred to as pet projects that legislators anonymously insert into spending bills. The disclosure legislation requires members of Congress to list their names along with any earmarks and certify that they do not have a financial stake in the projects in question.

The bill passed 98-0 because no one wants to be seen as anti-transparency come election time, and I'm glad this kind of policy will become law. It begs the question why this didn't happen a long time ago, but at least it has happened now.

Here in Tennessee, I hope our lawmakers will follow this national example when it comes to ethics and disclosure. The Tennessean reported earlier this week that while the public must follow a 10-step procedure to view how legislators voted on a particular bill via the General Assembly Web site, lawmakers themselves can see the same results with a single click.

In a political climate where many citizens already question the integrity on both sides of the aisle, this inconsistency at the very least reinforces the perception that lawmakers don't want the sun to shine on their activities on the Hill. Senator Rosalind Kurita called this week for a new focus on open government in the wake of John Wilder's ouster as speaker of the Senate. I completely agree with the need for this change in direction:

It was time for a change in the structure [in the Senate]. The dedication to keeping a status quo was preventing our state from putting real energy and bi-partisan effort into solving problems and moving Tennessee forward. I chose to break the logjam so there can be a vigorous, but civil, policy discussion over the current and future direction of our state. We face a host of issues—from improving education, healthcare, and job creation to new alternative energy proposals and a more open government. We cannot afford gridlock or stagnation if we are to help solve these problems. It may seem ironic to some, but only now are Democrats and Republicans free to work together on real issues. I voted my conscience.

Open government should also be a part of the legislative agenda. One way to accomplish this would be to allow every voter an equal opportunity to vote for our state's constitutional officers: Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Comptroller. They are currently elected by the members of the General Assembly. Tennessee is one of very few states where voters are not empowered to make such important decisions on high-ranking government officials. Letting our citizens vote increases accountability and makes sure government is held accountable...

Every member of the Senate is tired of being 49th in so many areas. I intend to work with my fellow Democrats and Republicans as well as the new Lt. Governor to create legislation that moves our state forward. The era of the smoke-filled back room is over and we are now free to have a healthy public policy debate that can only benefit the citizens of this great state.

As I mentioned earlier, this era should have begun a long time ago, but I am grateful that it is happening now. There will always be political maneuvering in the General Assembly, but Tennessee is taking baby steps toward having a more open and honest governing body. I hope this trend continues, including making it easier for local residents to see how their elected officials voted on the bills put before them.

Great riddance

I'm relieved by the State Senate's decision today to replace John Wilder as Lt. Governor. I applaud Senator Rosalind Kurita for following her conscience, as she explained, in voting for Sen. Ron Ramsey for speaker. Whether there were the usual machinations behind the scenes to bring about this result, I have no idea, but this is a good change for the state. In my opinion, voting against her party, regardless of other political implications, was the right thing to do.

Reportedly Sen. Jerry Cooper voted for Wilder, but not before privately urging him to step down as speaker. I would have liked to see him vote against Wilder, but I still respect his direct request of the former speaker. I like the sound of that last phrase.

It is a sad situation that Sen. Mike Williams, who many thought might be the deciding vote, likely made his decision only after seeing Kurita vote against Wilder. With Wilder unable to get the required 17 votes regardless of what Williams did, Williams did the politically expedient thing and voted with his party rather than for Wilder. If the speaker election were a secret ballot announced only after the counting instead of a public roll call vote, Wilder's tenure as speaker may have ended a long time ago. That's a shame.

Even Wilder

Bob Krumm isn't as optimistic as Kleinheider. Is he right?

My best guess is that the legislative session will begin as it has for the last 36 years–with John Wilder at the helm. And if that is the case, my sincerest wishes are for the old man to do his job well over the next two years. The future of our State depends on it.

I hope he is wrong, and Bob does, too. He goes on to raise an even more significant issue:

I made John Wilder’s leadership a center piece of my campaign to change the culture on Capitol Hill. The majority of people seemed to agree that he was incompetent. But acknowledging that Wilder needed to go was not the same thing as making Senator Douglas Henry precede him out the door...

Based on what I have read in the past few months, I would have to say that nearly everyone outside of the State Senate (and many within its walls) realizes that having John Wilder as our Lt. Governor is not in Tennessee's best interest. Making that assumption, why is it that a small group of men cannot act in the best interest of six million people whom they serve? It is disappointing to see, though perhaps no surprise, that we struggle as a society to create positive change through government. Here's hoping that Wilder's tenure as speaker ends today and that we inch toward a government better suited to serve as many of its constituents as possible.

Wilder than ever

Today may (or may not) be decision day regarding the next speaker of the Tennessee State Senate. Whenever a verdict is reached, I sure hope Kleinheider is right:

They say in Tennessee Politics never to bet against the old man [incumbent speaker John Wilder], but I am tempted to this morning. My out on a limb prediction is that a week from now, John Wilder will no longer be Speaker. It may be [Sen. Ron] Ramsey or it may be someone else, but it will not be Wilder.

I think this would be a very positive development for Tennessee. In my opinion, Wilder has succeeded in establishing some level of bipartisanship that may well not have existed without him. That is a good thing. He has failed, though, in doing much other than maintaining his position as speaker, and he is largely responsible for the quagmire that the State Senate often is.

Here's one question I can't answer yet: Would Ramsey make a better speaker? Unquestionably, I think he would be a more credible figurehead for this governing body, but his ascension would likely lead to a much more partisan atmosphere.

I also wonder how much that atmosphere would change if Wilder is no longer the speaker. Regardless, I think having someone other than Wilder as Lt. Governor would be a good thing for the state, but how would the Senate operate in the wake of such a big change? Keep in mind that Wilder has served as speaker since 1971, so suffice it to say that there's a well-worn, if undeniably eccentric, pattern of (or lack of) leadership in place.

I am holding out hope that Randy McNally emerges as the speaker, as Kleinheider speculates may be the case.

If no one can bust through the gridlock, someone very well may put McNally's name in the hopper. He is a Republican, which would be fitting since the GOP holds a numerical majority. Also he is viewed as a Republican that Democrats can work with. If no one is able to achieve 17, I would look for a Lt. Governor McNally on a third or fourth ballot.

All of this leads me to a larger question: Is there anything that can reasonably be done to improve either legislative body of the General Assembly? There appears to be plenty of cynicism, self-interest and corruption to go around for quite some time, and I would sincerely like to see things change for the better. Unseating Wilder would likely be at least one solid step in that direction.